1 . The coronavirus pandemic (新冠疫情) has brought with it the rise of a new kind of single-use plastic in the form of personal protective equipment (PPE), like face masks and gloves. Experts warned that these sharply increasing single-use items could cause a new wave of plastic pollution and kill wildlife.

The charity Ocean Conservancy reported that volunteers had collected more than 100,000 PPE items from coasts and waterways during the last six months of 2020. They sent out a survey to more than 200 International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) coordinators and volunteers asking about their experience with PPE. The results show that it is a real problem. Volunteers collected 107,219 pieces of PPE in 70 of 115 participating countries. Of those surveyed, 94% reported seeing PPE at a clean-up, and 40% found five items or more. Further, 37% found the items had already sunk into the water.

“During one of our clean-ups in the canals of Leiden, our volunteers found a latex (乳胶) glove with a dead fish trapped in the thumb,” said Auke-Florian Hiemstra, a study coauthor from Leiden University. “Also, in the Dutch canals, we observed that a water bird was using face masks and gloves in its nests.” Other animals that have gotten trapped in face masks include a fox in the UK, a pufferfish in Florida, and two crabs in France. Numerous dogs and cats have been observed eating PPE as well.

The danger posed by PPE goes deeper than what the eye can see. Luckily, there are ways that all of us can be part of the solution to the problem of PPE pollution. Hiemstra suggested using reusable PPE instead of single-use products. In that case, we should deal with them properly by cutting the ear loops to prevent animal entanglements (缠绕物) and throwing them away in a bin that is not overstuffed. “We definitely think it is important for citizens to understand how much PPE is ending up in the environment and impacting animals,” Hiemstra said.

1. What can we infer from the numbers in paragraph 2?

A．The large amount of PPE in the environment.

B．Volunteers’ great efforts to protect the ocean.

C．The leading cause of ocean pollution.

D．Difficulties of cleaning up plastic waste in the ocean.

2. Which of the statements is TURE according to the passage?

A．PPE is attractive to dogs and cats due to its smell.

B．PPE pollution has done harm to many animals’ lives.

C．Water birds may not be influenced by plastic pollution.

D．Litter makes it hard for boats to pass through the canals.

3. Which of the solutions did Hiemstra mention to reduce PPE pollution?

A．Raising the price of PPE items.

B．Cleaning the rubbish bin regularly.

C．Replacing single-use products with reusable ones.

D．Limiting the production of non-recyclable plastic.

4. What is the passage mainly talking about?

A．The decline of wildlife due to overhunting.

B．The shortage of personal protective equipment.

C．The increasing number of coronavirus patients.

D．The plastic pollution caused by anti-pandemic products.

2 . As Plastic Chokes the Ocean, Technology Can Help

Some 8 million tons of non-recyclable (不可回收的) plastic end up in the ocean each year. At an alarming rate, the seas may have more plastic than fish by the middle of the century.     1    

Require a global solution to a global problem.     2     The developed countries and most of developing countries show their leadership in this process by setting goals, encouraging other member states, and offering support for poor countries.

    3     Although they are helpful to protect clean water and air, as it is known, non-recyclable plastic is widely used in the markets. Therefore, non-recyclable plastic still can be bought in our daily life. Its disappearance needs much more time and efforts.

Pay more attention to the new studies on plastic and technologies. Some of researchers are aiming to make replacements for plastic.     4     For example, “interceptors” can remove river pollution before it reaches the ocean.

Expect more responsibility from manufacturers.     5     As a start, they should be encouraged to simplify complex packaging. And their working with world governments will support poorer nations to improve waste collection and landfill (垃圾场) management.

The world doesn’t have enough time in trying to solve the problem. The sooner these efforts start, the better.

A．Strengthen the connection between countries.

B．Others are doing more research on new technologies.

C．Nearly 200 countries agreed to ban plastic pollution.

D．Establish production limits for non-recyclable plastic.

E．They should care about different laws on plastic in the poorer countries.

F．They are well aware of how to reduce the harms their products cause.

G．Thus it’s necessary to take immediate action to stop that.

3 . 阅读下面短文在空白处填入1个适当的单词或括号内单词的正确形式（每空1.5分计15分）

In the United States alone, over 100 million cell-phones are thrown away each year. Cell-phones are part of a     1     (grow) mountain of electronic wastes like computers and personal digital assistants.     2     electronic waste stream is increasing three times faster than traditional garbage as a whole.

Electronic devices contain valuable metals such as gold and silver. A Swiss study reported that while the weight of electronic goods     3     (represent) by precious metals was relatively small in comparison to total waste, the concentration (含量) of gold and other precious metals was     4     (high) in so-called e-waste than in naturally occurring minerals. Aside     5     that, electronic wastes also contain many poisonous metals. Even when the machines are recycled and the     6     (harm) metals are removed, the recycling process is often carried out in poor countries where many poisonous substances     7     (allow) to escape into the environment, or in practically uncontrolled ways     8     make more wastes generated.

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that most wastes are so dangerous that the tough     9     (restrict) are supposed to be put on the production, distribution, and use of electronic products, aimed     10     (tackle) this problem to the greatest extent.

4 . Many of the world’s largest consumer product companies, including Coca-Cola, Unilever and PepsiCo, have set ambitious targets for replacing original plastics with recycled ones-typically 25% of their total packaging by 2025. So far, however, most companies have made modest progress and will need to accelerate their efforts to reach these high goals, according to a new cover story in Chemical& Engineering News, an independent news outlet of the American Chemical Society.

In the U.S., only about 10% of plastics are recycled into new products, compared with nearly33% in Europe, writes senior editor Alex Tullo. Facing increasing consumer pressure, many companies have made big promises to increase the amount of recycled plastics they use in packaging to 25%-50% by 2025 or 2030. However, most currently hover at a recycling rate between 2% and 12%, meaning that they will need to greatly speed up their efforts in order to succeed. Meeting the goals will require new technologies to help make plastics easier to recycle, as well as widespread collaboration and investment among brand owners, consumers, recycling facilities, chemical companies and others.

In traditional mechanical recycling, facilities sort through consumers’ recyclables collected local trash porters, separating plastics from metal, glass and other materials. To ease this dud process, AMP Robotics has developed a machine with learning-based technology that identify different types of plastics and pulls unwanted materials off the line with an inflated(充气的)arm. Next, the separated plastics are cut, washed, melted and reshaped. Then, plastics intended for food packaging undergo additional finishing steps.

Although recycling firms have developed new technologies, such as solvent extraction(溶剂萃取), to recycle different types of plastic more efficiently, consumer product companies must redesign their packaging, for example, by removing various plastics and metalized layers, to make them easier to recycle. Also, experts say that consumers need to do their part by putting more of their used plastics into recycling bins.

1. To achieve the high goals in recycling, what need those companies do?

A．Promise to use more recycled plastics in packaging.

B．Connect new technologies with traditional recycling.

C．Turn to AMP Robotics with learning-based technology.

D．Combine new technologies, cooperation with financial support.

2. Compared with traditional recycling, what is the advantage of AMP Robotics?

A．It can separate plastics from multiple materials.

B．It can identify and pick out the unwanted plastics.

C．It can recycle plastics for food packaging directly.

D．It can use solvent extraction to ease plastics recycling.

3. What can be inferred from the last paragraph?

A．Solvent extraction is a traditional recycling method.

B．Consumers are expected to practice garbage classification.

C．Recycling firms should remove plastics layers to ease recycling.

D．Redesigning packaging makes no difference in plastics recycling.

4. What is the text mainly about?

A．Traditional recycling will be replaced.

B．Redesigning the food packaging is very urgent.

C．New technologies are much needed in plastics recycling.

D．There’s a long way to go for plastics recycling.

5 . The process of mountaintop removal mining (MTR) has caused permanent damage to Appalachia. Although the law requires that mining companies restore the mountaintops after the mining has been completed, the 1.5 million acres of mountains that have already been removed cannot be regrown, rebuilt, or replaced. The companies do secure the rock formations to prevent erosion and landslides, but their efforts cannot recreate the once-beautiful mountain landscape. Furthermore, while companies are usually cautious about securing the rock formations, they seem less interested in restoring the native plants. MTR operations clear enormous areas of forests; some experts estimate that over 2,000 square miles of forests in the Appalachian region will have been razed by mining companies by the end of this year. Instead of replanting the native trees and shrubs that have been cleared, many companies chose to plant cheap, fast-growing plants.

Environmental threats are not only created in preparing a mountaintop for mining, but they also continue once the coal has been extracted. After the explosion, the excess mountaintop——which miners refer to as “overburden”——is usually dumped into nearby valleys or streams. The overburden contains a variety of poisonous substances, including explosive residue, silica, and coal dust. Over 700 miles of streams in Appalachia have been polluted by this dumping. Although the mining companies have built structures known as “sludge dams” that are intended to contain the runoff, these dams may easily burst or leak, sending thousands of gallons of poisonous chemicals into drinking water.

While the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other environmental protection bills can theoretically be enforced to protect Appalachia, local lawmakers have been unwilling to take action for fear of upsetting those who believe that the jobs created by MTR are vital to the community. However, instead of bringing jobs and prosperity to poor Appalachian communities, MTR companies actually bring destruction and poverty. MTR does not involve the amount of human labor required by traditional sub surface mining. Despite the poverty. MTR does not involve the amount of human labor required by traditional sub-surface mining. Despite the fact that coal production has increased between 1950 and 2004. the human labor force working in these mines has sharply decreased. In the 1950s, there were approximately 130,000 people employed by the mining companies; by 2004, that number had decreased to 16,00. Moreover, while the coal companies may make enormous profits from MTR, Appalachian communities located near the mines suffer increased rates of kidney cancer, brain cancer, lung cancer, chronic pulmonary disorders and vision problems.

1. What does the underlined word “razed” in Paragraph I probably mean?

A．Restored.

B．Closed.

C．Researched.

D．Destroyed.

2. What might the author think of the “sludge dams”?

A．They are of little help in avoiding pollution.

B．They are a threat to local mining companies.

C．They are big enough to contain the overburden.

D．They are cleverly designed to prevent flooding.

3. What do the figures in the last paragraph imply?

A．MTR hasn't contributed too much to employment.

B．The population of Appalachia has decreased greatly.

C．The number of mining companies has declined sharply.

D．Mining companies haven't brought in enormous profits.

4. What does the author try to convey in the text?

A．The importance of traditional coal power.

B．His love for Appalachian communities.

C．His concern about the impact of MTR.

D．The urgency of developing Appalachia.